memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations
Nominations without objections A few months ago, I put quite a bit of work into this article by writing the summary, inserting images to compliment the text and adding several background points. I'd like to think it is as comprehensive as it can be and therefore would like to place it up for self-nomination. I hope everyone finds it alright, but please do comment on anything that can be done to improve it further. Thanks! :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:57, August 10, 2011 (UTC) :Comment - Almost all of the background information comes from only two sources - the DS9 Companion and the AOL chats. While between those two sources there's plenty of info, have you checked, for example, the script (available here) and the DS9 Season 7 DVD?–Cleanse ( talk | ) 03:20, August 11, 2011 (UTC) ::I did check the script but as far as I could see there was nothing note-worthy that could be added to the article. However, if you notice something that I have missed, please feel free to correct me! As for the DVD, I down't own it so I can't see if there's anything worth adding from that. --| TrekFan Open a channel 10:58, August 11, 2011 (UTC) ::Addendum: While reading through the script again, I did notice a minor piece of info that I have now added; the working title was "Untitled Bashir." Other than that, I don't see anything else that can be added from the script. --| TrekFan Open a channel 11:02, August 11, 2011 (UTC) :Comment - Might I suggest breaking up some of the acts into more paragraphs ? Some of the acts contain very large (compact) bodies of text; paragraphing them improves readability I think. Otherwise a thorough piece, as I've come to expect from you.--Sennim 12:08, August 11, 2011 (UTC) ::Thank you so much for the compliment, Sennim! I appreciate it and I have acted on your advice to break up the paragraphs into more "manageable" chunks as this doesn't change the content of the article and (I feel) isn't likely to cause an edit war while under nomination. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:42, August 11, 2011 (UTC) :Support Ah, much more readable. In respect to the perceived limited quantity of BGinfo, that is not a shortcoming of Trekfan. By that time publications on those aspects of the productions started to wane (In that respect the demise of the Star Trek: The Magazine has to be seriously lamented). The only two other sources I can think of that he could have consulted were the corresponding issues of Starlog's The Official Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Magazine and Cinefantastique. I have my doubts about the usefulness of the first and the second one I have. There was an article in it about the episode, but the info therein was covered by the Companion. It is gratifying to read that the production team in general stick to their stories over time. DS9 is particularly well served by its Companion as it is what BGinfo is concerned the most superior publication of its kind I've ever encountered of any production, Trek or otherwise (the Voyager follow-up was a crushing disappointment and the very worst publication)...Checked the DVD, no info on the episode there.-- Sennim 10:41, August 12, 2011 (UTC) ::Comment: If the material from the compendium is duplicated (or similar) in the Cinefantastique issue, then it might be worth adding citations from there too, so that there is the "double source" (so to speak). -- sulfur 12:04, August 12, 2011 (UTC) :Comment Very well, if Trekfan has no objections I'll make some edits in the BGinfo to reflect the Cinefantastique source, when I find the time somewhere next week. (WARNING! nitpick: Cinefantastique is the older publication :)) Addendum: Defiant has beaten me to the punch, great job Defiant!!!--Sennim 13:37, August 12, 2011 (UTC) ::Excellent job with the additions to the bg info, Defiant. Could there possibly be anything more than can be done to this article? It looks pretty solid now, more so than some episode FAs. --| TrekFan Open a channel 15:37, August 12, 2011 (UTC) :::Thanks for the compliments, guys. I reckon the summary could be edited down some and made more concise. Unless the episode's teaser is about 10/15 minutes long, I don't think its supposedly summarized version should be as lengthy as it is. Also, we should select one tense for quotes, so they can be made more consistent (either "Ronald D. Moore explained, "...etc." and "As Ronald D. Moore explained; "...etc." OR "Ronald D. Moore explains, "...etc." and "As Ronald D. Moore explains; "...etc." but not both past and present). --Defiant 20:56, August 12, 2011 (UTC) ::IIRC, the teaser for this episode is a fairly long one (as teasers go) so I would be opposed to changing that (particularly when we already have a supporting vote - don't want to get into the whole Reginald Barclay thing again!), but I do agree with the tense thing as that is relatively minor. I didn't even realize I had written it like that when I did, but I will correct any I see and post back here. --| TrekFan Open a channel 01:42, August 13, 2011 (UTC) ::OK, I think I managed to get all of the "tense" issues, but if I missed any please let me know. I changed them to read "Moore commented...", "Behr said..." etc etc. --| TrekFan Open a channel 01:48, August 13, 2011 (UTC) :::I wish to oppose the article's nomination, then, since I feel that the summary has too much rambling. This content issue is also clearly in dispute, as TrekFan evidently believes differently. I feel we, as a community, should concentrate on whatever each article needs, rather than just what is needed to push them through the FA nomination process. There is more info available from Cinefantastique which is missing from the article and I'm not completely convinced that there's no info whatsoever that can be gleaned from the script. --Defiant 07:48, August 13, 2011 (UTC) Nominations with objections Worf There are three reason this should be a FA: 1) This is one of the most comprehensive articles on MA and covers all the necessary criteria. 2) This article covers more Star Trek history in detail than any other article we have. 3) It's fraking Worf, what more do you want?! - 21:15, July 31, 2011 (UTC) *'Support'. Clearly deserves FA status.--31dot 01:53, August 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose'. There are a few things that need to be sorted out before I can support this as a Featured Article. :1) While most of the background information is now cited, there are two comments that I haven't been able to find a reference for. The translation thing isn't in the The Klingon Dictionary (2nd ed.), though I suppose it could be in another of Okrand's works. As for the /Worf's absence/First Contact note, I'm not sure that quite jives with what's in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion, though I guess it's possible. :2) I think the page should have a proper appearances list, per previous discussions on Talk: Wesley Crusher and Talk: Main character non-appearances. This could be done in a space-saving format, of course. (TNG except for... etc.)–Cleanse ( talk | ) 06:25, August 1, 2011 (UTC) I removed the note about the vacation, since there is no information on the film or episode pages, suggesting to me it's a rumor at best. As for the translation, that could just be removed as well if no cite is found, since it's hardly the most important piece of information on the page. An appearances, or non-appearances, section could be added, but there is no reason to list the first three seasons of DS9 as non-appearances like it is on that page, since that's, A) silly, and B) not relevant since he wasn't a cast member. If some clarifying note is needed, it can be added, but presenting the information in that manner is confusing the point of the list, or suggesting that Dorn was cast but just didn't feel like working. - 07:37, August 1, 2011 (UTC) Never mind about the translation note, I've removed it for the reasons I mention here. That just leaves the appearances section. - 08:08, August 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Suppport' now that those issues have been resolved. I expanded and organised the background information section as well.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 10:49, August 1, 2011 (UTC) *'Oppose': seems to require a lot of work, with many instances of "would" used in the wrong context (I remember reading about this in our policies and guildelines, though I can't quite remember where – mainly because the policies and guidelines are so jumbled!), random sentences that could do with more context, and quite a few grammatical errors, etc. (at least as far as I've read, though I've tried to sort these out). I suggest a peer review, then probably renomination. --Defiant 14:57, August 1, 2011 (UTC) :There's also a few sentences that literally don't make sense, so I'm unable to make head nor tail of them, which I find irritating, because I would like to enjoy this article and not come up against such confusing statements. Also, I'm confused about whether we're still endeavoring to avoid duplicated links on MA or not. --Defiant 15:41, August 1, 2011 (UTC) ::MA:POV#Tense for the "would do" v "did" stuff. Links should not be duplicated, except in the case of really long articles. -- sulfur 15:50, August 1, 2011 (UTC) :That's the impression I had, though I wasn't aware of the exception. Are we excusing this article from that guideline, then? --Defiant 16:00, August 1, 2011 (UTC) :::Just as an aside, I think we should generally relax that "one-link" policy somewhat. The purpose of that originally was to increase readability by not having each word be a link. If that policy starts do decrease the quality of navigation (because readers have to search hard for the single link to some article), it has gone too far. Perhaps "once per section" would be a better guideline. -- Cid Highwind 16:54, August 1, 2011 (UTC) :I've often thought it would be, though I know some bots have (or at least had) the faculty of specifically searching for cases of duplicated links, so I also suspected that there might be some reason for their exclusion, other than just user readability. --Defiant 17:30, August 1, 2011 (UTC) Did a pass at rewording uses of the word "would", though someone else might want to take a crack at it as well. I don't see a need for a peer review over these minor pov adjustments, as they are hardly significant revisions to the article, and I doubt that two weeks are required to fix them, or would even lead to them being fixed. That said, I would request that some of the confusing sentences be pointed out, since this is a rather long article, and I seem to have missed them before. - 10:52, August 2, 2011 (UTC) *'Support'. Clearly deserves FA status if only for the info contained, True, maybe the "would" grammar needs to be addressed, but I've been as a non-Anglo Saxon corrected in abundance, does not subtract from the fact of the value of the article, further corrections are to be considered minor --Sennim 00:49, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :I agree that they're minor... each of them. But there's many. And like some folks say in the UK, pennies make pounds (I guess the US equivalent would be "cents make dollars"?), but I digress. I'll try to identify the sentences I'm having a hard time understanding. In the meantime, I certainly appreciate the work that's gone into this; it's a very impressive article, just quite a few nitpicks that could do with being ironed out. --Defiant 01:41, August 6, 2011 (UTC) ::Then were are in agreement, one kick ass article, only in need of iring out by, grammatically, true and bred Anglo-Saxons (the community of which I'm unfortunately not part of...)--Sennim 02:32, August 6, 2011 (UTC) *'Support' I'm in agreement with the above supporting votes. This is a very extensive and comprehensive article that is deserving of FA status. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:13, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :Nitpicks: here goes. Firstly, there's a section that reads "K'Ehleyr, an iconoclastic ambassador and Worf's former lover, ... introduced their child, Alexander (see Family: K'Ehleyr and Alexander)." It doesn't say who or what K'Ehleyr introduced Alexander to, or what she introduced him into, but I think it'd be grammatically less awkward if it did – something along the lines of "K'Ehleyr introduced Alexander to Worf" or "K'Ehleyr introduced Alexander into the Enterprise crew," etc. A section I keep getting stuck on is where it says, "Worf served on Kurn's ship during the civil war, and fought at the Battle of Mempa, although he soon found himself dissatisfied at the impulsive manner of Klingon society when off-duty, Kurn's associating with officers who served the Duras family while they were in bars at the same time, despite the hostilities currently occurring between them." Not only is that sentence quite a rambling one but I also can't make head nor tail of it, grammatically. I also have problems with the sentence, "On the surface, Worf found L'Kor, now an old man. L'Kor informed Worf that his father died at Khitomer, and that a number of prisoners were taken to this camp." The surface of what, Carraya IV or some other planet in the Carraya region? And is that meant to be "a number of prisoners had been taken to this camp", just as it should be "his father had died at Khitomer"? The sentence, "Worf revealed technical knowledge of a temporal anomaly," seems too short and I'd like some clarification as to whether this was during the mission to Theta 116 VII or not. Another sentence I find confusing reads, "In 2370, Worf found himself along with the rest of the ''Enterprise crew following a mission to aid a stranded Romulan Warbird." I'm not entirely familiar with the term "to find oneself" and I find its usage here perplexing; does the word "following" mean subsequent to or basically just "on a mission that they were following". Although I certainly might be wrong, I have a hunch that a sentence that could be developed into a proper paragraph is the line that reads, "''Worf helped Byleth understand the humanoid emotion of antagonism." Another nonsensical sentence is "The transmitter was tucked away in a cramped compartment, and Garak had to overcome his acute claustrophobia to complete it." Complete what?! The phrase "Worf, together with Romulans" (in the section) seems childish, because it's too oversimplified; which Romulans? --Defiant 20:38, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :::Comment. Specific criticisms should be discussed at the article's talk page; if you oppose the article because it needs too many changes, then comments here should be left at that(which you already did with your original oppose vote)--31dot 20:45, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :Sorry; I thought Archduk3 meant he'd like comments here when he stated, "I would request that some of the confusing sentences be pointed out, since this is a rather long article, and I seem to have missed them before." --Defiant 20:56, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :::Well, the above seemed like more than "some" to me, but that is only my opinion and need not be yours. :) We're just almost at the point I think where, if there is that many comments about changes, this discussion is more about that then whether or not this should be an FA.--31dot 22:13, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :I agree; "some" seems quite a subjective qualification. It is what I was aiming for, though, and I made sure that I didn't go past the about-halfway-down mark of the "Personality" section. "Too many corrections needed" is the reasoning for my objection to this FA nomination. I've been asked to explain further, which I've tried to do. I'm therefore starting to feel like this is beginning to get personal. I'd much rather it not, though, as I do love everyone's work here on MA; it's a really good community to be part of, generally. :) --Defiant 22:39, August 6, 2011 (UTC) :::I apologize; I have not intended anything personal towards you.--31dot 01:02, August 7, 2011 (UTC) :Okay; apology accepted, and I'll take you at your word – that you didn't mean it to seem personal. But (returning to topic) did you mean that you don't think my quibbles about the article are sufficient for it not to achieve FA status? --Defiant 06:37, August 7, 2011 (UTC) :::I was not making any judgments about the merits of your criticism; I was simply saying that I felt this wasn't the place to go into extensive details.--31dot 08:40, August 7, 2011 (UTC) :Alright. Thanks for that clarification. :) --Defiant 08:46, August 7, 2011 (UTC) I've adjusted the wording of the sentences in question to hopefully be more Defiant and English friendly. :) - 13:21, August 11, 2011 (UTC)